On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>>>> On 8/7/2004 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> What? If there was consensus to do this, I missed it. If there was
>>>>> even any *discussion* of doing this, I missed it.
>>>
>>>> How many questions about vacuum still grabbing all available bandwidth,
>>>> vacuum slowing down the whole system, vacuum being all evil do you want
>>>> to answer for 8.0? Over and over again we are defending reasonable
>>>> default configuration values against gazillions of little switches, and
>>>> this is a reasonable default that will be a relief for large databases
>>>> and makes more or less no difference for small ones.
>>>
>>> What basis do you have for saying that this is a reasonable default?
>>> Does anyone else agree?
>>
>> Just curious, but isn't this one of the key points about pg_autovacuum in
>> the first place? So that you vacuum what needs to be vacuum'd, and not
>> *everything* ... ? Shouldn't the answer to the 'bandwidth issue' change
>> to 'you should install/use pg_autovacuum'?
>
> We are talking about the vacuum delay feature, not pg_autovacuum.
Right, and your point? That doesn't answer my question, only clarifies
for everyone what we already know we're talking about, thank you ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664